# Support Adding Types to People App **URL:** \ **Category:** Ideas & Features\ **Created:** [April 24, 2021, 1:36pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578 "2021-04-24T13:36:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rothnic](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/rothnic/32/1850_2.png) [@rothnic](https://community.fibery.io/u/rothnic)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2021, 1:36pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578/1 "2021-04-24T13:36:28Z")
I am working through organization of our apps and types so we don’t have too many overlapping apps. One type that I have created is “Organization,” which is related to the Users type that is owned by the People app. I’m trying to keep all my apps as processes, but I’m ending up with something like a “Home” app or something like that to own all the types that don’t make sense to be owned by another app. Examples are Organization (Product, Marketing, etc), Product (B2B Product Name, B2C Product Name, etc), etc. These are things that define much of our business concepts used across the various apps. I realized that Organization would likely make more sense in the People app. If we think about these apps as processes, it should contain everything to help in managing people, how they are organized, contact information, etc. Because we can’t create more types in the people app or move types into the people app, we are forced to maintain some other app that contains types about people. ---
**Author:** ![antoniokov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/antoniokov/32/201_2.png) [@antoniokov](https://community.fibery.io/u/antoniokov)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 1:47pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578/2 "2021-04-28T13:47:10Z")
Makes perfect sense! People App should be an App just like others with its own Types and Access. There is a chance we’ll make it into one as a part of our group permission improvements 🤞 ---
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 2:07pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578/3 "2021-04-28T14:07:45Z")
Any idea of the ETA for the new permissions model? ---
**Author:** ![antoniokov](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/antoniokov/32/201_2.png) [@antoniokov](https://community.fibery.io/u/antoniokov)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 2:44pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578/4 "2021-04-28T14:44:38Z")
Still too early for a decently accurate ETA but we hope to get basic group permissions going in June or July. Please ping us via Intercom if you’d like to jump into the private beta for this thing. ---
**Author:** ![Oshyan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/oshyan/32/11431_2.png) [@Oshyan](https://community.fibery.io/u/Oshyan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 3:28pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/support-adding-types-to-people-app/1578/5 "2021-04-28T15:28:15Z")
> [@antoniokov](#): > > People App should be an App just like others with its own Types and Access. There is a chance we’ll make it into one as a part of our group permission improvements 🤞 There is a difference of opinion on whether “People” (i.e. “Users”) should be an “App” or “Type” at all. I think this is actually not intuitive. I imagine you have seen discussion here: > [@Add People Without Permissions](https://community.fibery.io/t/add-people-without-permissions/1577/11): > > If you just consider how the rest of Fibery is built, the Users type just doesn’t fit the same pattern. A Type should be a basic Type and any custom behaviors are added via extensions. The extensions, as far as I know, don’t limit you from adding entities to that type. The Users type does. The problems I’m running into I believe wouldn’t exist if this architectural pattern was applied consistently. > [@Add People Without Permissions](https://community.fibery.io/t/add-people-without-permissions/1577/12): > > After thinking about this discussion for a while, I tend to agree with you an elegant solution would be that ‘user’ is an extension (requiring an email address) available to any type, which adds the behaviours (permissions, notifications etc.). > [@Add People Without Permissions](https://community.fibery.io/t/add-people-without-permissions/1577/14): > > My feelings exactly. It is actually weird and awkward that _users_ are represented as a _type_ right now, IMO. The functionality that Fibery “users” brings - account association and @mentioning - seem more intuitively like “Extension” functionality to me.